Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    We read that Swanson believed his statement, irrespective of the fact it could not be verified.
    However, we also read that "the Leman-street police" did not believe his story.
    Which must be of concern to those who believe Schwartz' story - version 1.
    What could it have been that the police at Leman street saw or heard, that led them not to believe him?

    The way I had it explained to me, the process was that the police hand copies (or the originals?) of all the witness statements to the Coroner's Office. The coroner then reads all the statements and selects only those witnesses who experienced sufficient activities to enable the coroner's jury to determine the 'who, where, when & by what means' the victim met their death.

    Which suggests to me, if the police are unable to verify one particular statement then it would not qualify to be handed to the coroner.
    This is my interpretation of why Schwartz was not called by Baxter, he never saw his statement.
    Were the statements of William Marshall and James Brown, verified?

    I think what you're getting at is that by introducing another witness - Pipeman - who's existence cannot be verified, Schwartz' statement is not a valid one for the coroner to consider.
    Is that likely though? - surely witnesses are often seeing other witnesses who cannot be immediately located.
    Would that be enough to keep a critical statement away from a coroner?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Were the statements of William Marshall and James Brown, verified?
      They were not key witnesses, so their word can be taken at face value.
      Schwartz's statement is on a whole different level. He not only identified another witness, but an assault on the victim & potentially the murderer himself. His statement requires verification.


      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        Seeing the soon to be victim standing next to a man from the club, counts as something unusual.
        I'm not following you? Neither Lave nor PC Smith report seeing Stride standing next to a man from the club, and while that would indeed be unusual, it's also describing a situation absent from any of the testimony? Are you referring to somebody else's testimony here, as I'm unaware of anyone identifying Stride with an actual club member?

        Especially when he is probably the man standing next to her.
        Ah, I think I see where you're going with this. You're speculating that the evidence as given is the complete opposite of what happened, that Lave lied and PC Smith saw Stride with Lave. Got it.
        Thus Lave (which is probably a fake name) pretends he was wandering around on the street outside the club for 10 minutes, seeing nothing of consequence.
        Yes, that is dramatic. And also quite exciting, since Lave, who wasn't identified by PC Smith in the first place (or he would have indicated "I saw the victim with a man I know to be a member of the club...", decides to approach the press and set up an alibi in case the police do track him down, and cleverly, he uses a fake name so the police won't track him through his press report. Of course, then if he were later approached by the police, given he used a fake name, it sort of negates his ability to claim it as his alibi. And, he also links himself to the club, ensuring they know where to find him, and also, had he said nothing at all, would have avoided drawing attention to the whole thing in the first place. It's starting to show holes.
        So the first purpose is to play down the passing police constable's possible sighting of the victim, in both a dead and alive state.
        That's the last we hear of Lave, too - he does not appear to be among those who go running for police, so he must stay in the yard, thus allowing him to get (another) good look at the victim.
        And ran the risk of being recognized should PC Smith show up at the murder scene, just for jollies.
        Presumably Lave's name and address ended up on DI Reid's list of 28 club members.
        I have no idea what street he lived in, but a good guess would be that the number was 22.
        ha ha! Yes, 22 does show up a fair bit, doesn't it!


        Yes, and so does Eagle's return at 12:40.
        That's the other point of it - the timing is quite deliberate, and the purpose is to metaphorically clear the stage, in preparation for the incident involving Stride and Schwartz' first man, which can't be hindered by having anyone see it, which is why entries to and exits from the club, magically cease from 5 minutes before Schwartz supposedly turns into Berner St, to the time Diemschitz returns, supposedly at exactly 1 am.
        While I think that's a nice critique of your story's plot elements, we are now quite devoid of any real connection with actual evidence beyond noting its rapidly fading influence on the interpretation.

        Schwartz 'sees' it, of course, which is why Pipeman/Knifeman has to be invented.
        Given there's no known connection of Schwartz with the club, I still don't know why Schwartz would do this for them, or why they would rely upon Schwartz. Moreover, given that Schwartz tells the police a story that implicates a Jewish accomplice, his telling of the events do exactly the opposite of what people say the club was trying to do. Schwartz himself refutes that connection.
        So Israel, an endearing young man who goes out all day leaving his supposed wife to move house, and does not come to the assistance of a woman who is supposedly thrown to the ground right in front of him, has an 'excuse' to run away, as far as the rail arch - and thus has no idea, supposedly, as to the fate of the woman.
        He had the same excuse 99% of the public has when they ignore a confrontation - people avoid them; except those of us sitting at our desks, we, of course, would act differently had only we been there.

        The essence of the Schwartz incident could be defined as the period he witnesses from his entry into Berner street, until the the moment he reaches Ellen street.
        It would occupy about 90 seconds.
        In this period, Schwartz would traverse past many people either known to be awake at the time, or may have been, not including anyone inside the club.
        Who are these many people? Fanny said she was in and out of her house, and as you say, Schwartz is only present for about 90 seconds, so easily could be going by while Fanny was inside. The couple spotted by PC Smith may have moved on, we don't know. And, by his own account, he was spotted, by both BS and Pipeman.
        So quite suddenly, there are four people on the street and in the vicinity of #40 - Schwartz sees the other three at close range, yet no one else sees or hears a thing, and neither of the men are ever located by the police.
        Well, if BS is JtR, then his lack of being identified is a given. And, there are some reports which could point towards Pipeman having been identified and questioned and released. It's not conclusive, and sadly, we don't have the details, but to say Piipeman was never identified is putting it too strongly. Pipeman might have been identified and questions, but the records have been lost, and what remains is not conclusive.
        This just happens to occur directly outside a working men's club, on a night in which about 100 people are in attendance, most of them Jews, and yet here we have a Jewish man walking by alone at nearly 1 am, who has absolutely no involvement with it, regardless of living in the same fairly short street.
        It is truly amazing.
        How is it amazing? What is amazing about the fact that in a neighborhood with a high Jewish population there would be a club with mostly Jewish members, and that someone in the street happens to be Jewish? Isn't that, well, just kind of what one would expect?
        The Schwartz incident is not a real event, rather it is best described by this term; simulacra
        And that is one speculative idea. It's just one that is arrived at by first assuming the evidence is the opposite of what happened, without having to demonstrate that is the case.

        - Jeff
        Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-04-2020, 02:05 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          The Schwartz incident is not a real event, rather it is best described by this term; simulacra
          Much like all your theories, Pierre.

          Comment


          • Nobody calls me 'Pierre'

            Click image for larger version

Name:	th?id=OIP.fIpYl_V6TkL8cUrWxiE5IAHaEK&pid=Api&rs=1.jpg
Views:	137
Size:	15.0 KB
ID:	733932
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

              Much like all your theories, Pierre.
              Pierre / Chris should have finished their book in the near future, May was the last prediction. Wether it gets published is a different kettle of piss. Bet it'd make a great read though, for better or worse.
              Them's the vagaries.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                Yes, that is dramatic. And also quite exciting, since Lave, who wasn't identified by PC Smith in the first place (or he would have indicated "I saw the victim with a man I know to be a member of the club...", decides to approach the press and set up an alibi in case the police do track him down, and cleverly, he uses a fake name so the police won't track him through his press report. Of course, then if he were later approached by the police, given he used a fake name, it sort of negates his ability to claim it as his alibi. And, he also links himself to the club, ensuring they know where to find him, and also, had he said nothing at all, would have avoided drawing attention to the whole thing in the first place. It's starting to show holes.
                Joseph Lave is living temporarily at the club, so there no issue in tracking him down.
                I find it interesting that he has recently arrived from the United States, similarly to a man who lodges very near by.
                The name 'Lave' is not entirely fake, it's just another name he goes by - sort of like Liz Stride/Annie Morris, or Marie Jeanette Kelly.
                (BTW, I have an idea what the actual name might be, but still trying to join the dots...)
                So there are two important questions.
                1. Is the man standing next to Stride, holding the stack of papers, on Reid's list of 28 people at the club?
                2. If yes, did Smith get a good enough look at the man, to recognize him later in the club or yard?
                Now Smith said he did not get a good look at the man - for example he seems unsure if he has a moustache - and curiously, he does not hear the couple talking.
                Why do they apparently go quiet, when the policeman walks by?
                If the man is Lave, and Lave has subsequently changed his hat and maybe his coat by the time the PCs arrive, would Smith recognize him?
                Probably not, but it is definitely a risk.
                The alternative (#1 = 'No') is for the man (someone else) to leave the club and surrounding area, prior to that time.

                ha ha! Yes, 22 does show up a fair bit, doesn't it!
                Once or twice too often, to just be a coincidence.
                Does Israel Schwartz (as of Oct 1) live at 22 Ellen St, or 22 Backchurch Lane, where a Sarah Schwartz seems to have been living in 1885?
                On the subject of Schwartz' address, where in Berner St had he and his wife been living?
                Presumably somewhere on the club side, between Fairclough and Ellen streets.
                I wonder, when Israel tentatively walked back from the rail arch, did he notice a crowd of people outside the gates of #40?
                He would have been no further from the action than those that could see the same from Commercial Road.
                Did he go back for another look, or did he go somewhere else - somewhere more relevant to this thread, perhaps?

                While I think that's a nice critique of your story's plot elements, we are now quite devoid of any real connection with actual evidence beyond noting its rapidly fading influence on the interpretation.
                Schwartz claims to have gone out for at least half a day, and left his wife to move their meagre belongings to a new address.
                He then claims to walk down Berner St at 12:45 the following morning, to see if his wife is still at the old address.
                Let's not be fooled by this absurd story - Schwartz' wife is a simulacrum
                Next, he walks by the gates at the precise moment a thuggish man is throwing a woman to the ground.
                He then crosses the road, and at that precise moment he sees a man lighting his pipe, who ignores the woman but almost immediately begins following Schwartz with intent, for no apparent reason other than perhaps he has been triggered into action by the thug yelling 'Lipski!'.

                This is not evidence for anything, other than an attempted cover-up.

                Given there's no known connection of Schwartz with the club, I still don't know why Schwartz would do this for them, or why they would rely upon Schwartz. Moreover, given that Schwartz tells the police a story that implicates a Jewish accomplice, his telling of the events do exactly the opposite of what people say the club was trying to do. Schwartz himself refutes that connection.
                Schwartz is an important club member, but more on that another time...

                He had the same excuse 99% of the public has when they ignore a confrontation - people avoid them; except those of us sitting at our desks, we, of course, would act differently had only we been there.
                Schwartz did not run away from Pipeman, until Joseph Lawende chased him down Duke street.

                Who are these many people? Fanny said she was in and out of her house, and as you say, Schwartz is only present for about 90 seconds, so easily could be going by while Fanny was inside. The couple spotted by PC Smith may have moved on, we don't know. And, by his own account, he was spotted, by both BS and Pipeman.
                James Brown, the young couple, Charles Letchford and his sister, or this person:

                [TS1001] A woman living just opposite says that she was waiting up for her husband and listening for his coming, and she heard nothing to arouse her suspicion.

                Well, if BS is JtR, then his lack of being identified is a given. And, there are some reports which could point towards Pipeman having been identified and questioned and released. It's not conclusive, and sadly, we don't have the details, but to say Piipeman was never identified is putting it too strongly. Pipeman might have been identified and questions, but the records have been lost, and what remains is not conclusive.
                So why all the interest in this nebulous character?

                How is it amazing? What is amazing about the fact that in a neighborhood with a high Jewish population there would be a club with mostly Jewish members, and that someone in the street happens to be Jewish? Isn't that, well, just kind of what one would expect?
                About one in five East-Enders were Jewish, I believe.
                He is the right age, it was a night for newcomers ('Why Jews should be Socialist'), and it was not one of the nights that women and girls were brought to the club, for the entertainment of the men.
                It was almost a men-only night, and given the very young average age, this would be the obvious place to find a man with an ambiguous sexual orientation, like Israel Schwartz.
                Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 04-05-2020, 02:13 AM.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Hi Al Bundy's Eyes.

                  The Bureau - Only For Sheep - YouTube
                  Last edited by DJA; 04-05-2020, 04:43 AM.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Joseph Lave is living temporarily at the club, so there no issue in tracking him down.
                    So why not clarify that in your previous post, where you indicate it's "probably a false name" (though give no evidence to back that up), which creates the impression you think he's trying not to be found, etc.? If you just mean it's probably an alias, which was common as we know, then why not just be clear and say so.
                    I find it interesting that he has recently arrived from the United States, similarly to a man who lodges very near by.
                    Why? Americans in London, and the Whitechapel area, were not uncommon. What makes you find this sufficiently interesting to worth noting. It's hard to follow what point you're trying to make, although you're doing well at creating "atmosphere". But atmosphere is sophistry, it's a way of convincing people despite not presenting facts yet leaving them with an impression something has been presented.
                    The name 'Lave' is not entirely fake, it's just another name he goes by - sort of like Liz Stride/Annie Morris, or Marie Jeanette Kelly.
                    (BTW, I have an idea what the actual name might be, but still trying to join the dots...)
                    as I noted above, it wasn't clear that Lave as a fake name really just means you think it's his alias, which was common and so unremarkable (as per your examples).
                    So there are two important questions.
                    1. Is the man standing next to Stride, holding the stack of papers, on Reid's list of 28 people at the club?
                    1. There is no man standing next to Stride holding a stack of papers. PC Smith reports the man he saw with Stride was holding a newspaper parcel measuring 18" x 6" to 8". I know you've speculated that was a collection of leaflets, but that is just a guess as to what the parcel contained. I could speculate it was the man's chess pieces, or, if I wanted JtR to be a doctor, it was his dissection kit, or if I want a butcher/slaugtherman, a knife set, etc. But just because I can speculate all sorts of things that might fit into a parcel of those dimensions doesn't turn those speculation into a description of what the man *was* reported as holding, which is a newspaper parcel measuring 18" x 6" to 8". It certainly was not described as a stack of papers, therefore you can't state that there was a man standing next to Stride holding such.
                    2. If yes, did Smith get a good enough look at the man, to recognize him later in the club or yard?
                    PC Smith got a good enough look to suggest the man's age (around 28), height (about 5' 7") his clothes (a dark hard felt deerstalker, dark clothes - overcoat, dark trousers, clean shaven (actually, he says "no whiskers", and maybe that just means sideburns and beard?), and that he seemed sober. He does indicate he didn't get a good look at the man's face, but he got more than a passing glimpse of the person. I think it would be quite safe to suggest that JtR would be aware of that, and would be concerned about being recognized if he hung out after the fact as PC Smith might (and does) show up later.
                  • Now Smith said he did not get a good look at the man - for example he seems unsure if he has a moustache - and curiously, he does not hear the couple talking.
                    Why do they apparently go quiet, when the policeman walks by?
                    Who knows? Natural lull in their conversation? Simply going quiet during a personal conversation when anyone approaches? Negotiating something illegal? Take your pick or feel free to speculate away, but whichever you do, it's a guess and not one we can investigate now.
                    If the man is Lave, and Lave has subsequently changed his hat and maybe his coat by the time the PCs arrive, would Smith recognize him?
                    Probably not, but it is definitely a risk.
                    From the description PC Smith was able to give, I think the odds are far more in favour of "probably would", but we're just sharing opinions here. What we do know, is that PC Smith did arrive at the crime scene, he did recognize Stride as the woman he saw earlier, he does indicate he didn't get as good a look at the man's face, so either of us could be right. He certainly doesn't indicate he saw the man at the crime scene, and there's no reason beyond speculation to suggest that Lave was the man with Stride in the first place.
                    The alternative (#1 = 'No') is for the man (someone else) to leave the club and surrounding area, prior to that time.



                    Once or twice too often, to just be a coincidence.
                    Does Israel Schwartz (as of Oct 1) live at 22 Ellen St, or 22 Backchurch Lane, where a Sarah Schwartz seems to have been living in 1885?
                    On the subject of Schwartz' address, where in Berner St had he and his wife been living?
                    Presumably somewhere on the club side, between Fairclough and Ellen streets.
                    I wonder, when Israel tentatively walked back from the rail arch, did he notice a crowd of people outside the gates of #40?
                    Again, unanswerable.
                    He would have been no further from the action than those that could see the same from Commercial Road.
                    Did he go back for another look, or did he go somewhere else - somewhere more relevant to this thread, perhaps?
                    There is nothing in the evidence we have, as far as I know, that suggests he did any of those things.

                    Schwartz claims to have gone out for at least half a day, and left his wife to move their meagre belongings to a new address.
                    He then claims to walk down Berner St at 12:45 the following morning, to see if his wife is still at the old address.
                    Let's not be fooled by this absurd story - Schwartz' wife is a simulacrum
                    I'm pretty sure if Schwartz didn't have a wife they would have figured that out pretty quick. And if the story was a fabrication then adding in such a detail would be silly, they would have just had him going out for supper and returning home, or some other innocuous activity. His story sounds perfectly reasonable for the time and place.
                    Next, he walks by the gates at the precise moment a thuggish man is throwing a woman to the ground.
                    No, he sees a man stumbling ahead of him, who stops and suddenly grabs Stride and throws her to the ground, he moves to the other side of the street. He simply was someone walking behind the man who throws Stride to the ground.
                    He then crosses the road, and at that precise moment he sees a man lighting his pipe, who ignores the woman but almost immediately begins following Schwartz with intent, for no apparent reason other than perhaps he has been triggered into action by the thug yelling 'Lipski!'.

                    This is not evidence for anything, other than an attempted cover-up.
                    An eyewitness to a physical assault on someone who shortly afterwards is found murdered is, I think you'll find, considered evidence. There's nothing really all that remarkable about Schwartz's story, particularly if one accepts Andersen's interpretation that pipeman was simply another bystander, and that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz, implicating a Gentile (unlike what Schwartz believed, which was that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, and so implicating a Jewish offender).

                    Schwartz is an important club member, but more on that another time...
                    I've yet to see any evidence of that, though I've heard it speculated a few times.

                    Schwartz did not run away from Pipeman, until Joseph Lawende chased him down Duke street.
                    Lawende is from Eddowes' murder, there's nothing to place him at the Stride scene.

                    James Brown, the young couple, Charles Letchford and his sister, or this person:

                    [TS1001] A woman living just opposite says that she was waiting up for her husband and listening for his coming, and she heard nothing to arouse her suspicion.

                    So why all the interest in this nebulous character?


                    About one in five East-Enders were Jewish, I believe.
                    He is the right age, it was a night for newcomers ('Why Jews should be Socialist'), and it was not one of the nights that women and girls were brought to the club, for the entertainment of the men.
                    It was almost a men-only night, and given the very young average age, this would be the obvious place to find a man with an ambiguous sexual orientation, like Israel Schwartz.
                    20% is a pretty high proportion, so finding a club and/or someone in the street, being Jewish is what one would expect.

                    Many more people of the right age, etc, would not be members than members. You would need to find his name on a list of club members to assert he was one. Otherwise, odds are, he wasn't.

                    - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Oh dear, just noticed the very large blank space at the start of that post. Don't know how I did that, but it's beyond the time I can edit it out. oops. Sorry.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      If the police had been unable to verify his story, or to prove any part of what Schwartz claimed. Why would they pass his statement over to a coroner for him to appear at an inquest?
                      This wasn't just an ordinary witness, he would be a key witness, with significant claims.
                      We don't know they didn't pass his statement over do we? It's never been determined why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest, but given they allowed others to testify whose stories they must have questioned (i.e. Mary Malcolm's claim that Stride was her sister), I don't think they prevented people just because there were doubts about the information. Also, there are a couple of messages between the police and home office (I think), where it sounds like the police had expected Schwartz to testify at the inquest (actually, they read as if Schwartz had testified at the inquest, though we know that is wrong and I think it's just an example of poor wording - all covered before on the boards so I won't go over it again here).

                      What I find most annoying is there is nothing to indicate why Schwartz suddenly vanishes. We know the police didn't think Schwartz's belief that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman was correct, but that just means they doubted Schwartz's interpretation of the events (who was shouting at whom; was pipeman chasing Schwartz, or just also leaving the scene? etc), rather than the events themselves (Lipski was shouted by BS; pipeman headed in the same direction as Schwartz, etc). Given we know the police at least doubted Schwartz's interpretation, then the press reports indicating the police doubted the truth of the story may simply reflect that doubt without indicating they doubted the events happened - just Schwartz's interpretation of them.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • There is nothing in the evidence we have, as far as I know, that suggests he did any of those things.
                        Jeff,
                        you are not going to find Jack the Ripper, purely by looking at evidence.
                        There is not evidence to do that.
                        Instead, hypotheses have to be generated, using incomplete knowledge - then tested, and then altered or discarded as the case may be.
                        I do this in my head all the time, and put some of it up here, and often reject my own ideas based on the feedback I get.
                        The gaps can (hopefully) be filled in later, when in a position to start joining dots.
                        In contrast, there is no point in continually saying 'there is no evidence for that', or 'there is nothing to suggest that', if you're not prepared to think hypothetically.
                        We may not have hard evidence that Schwartz was at Mitre Square, but we do have something else; reason
                        I have reason to believe Schwartz was lying, and I take it from there...
                        You appear to only see the situation in terms of evidence, and therefore you accept his story, regardless of how silly it is.
                        If you suppose the evidence-only approach is the only valid one, then let's have a look at the most crucial evidence we have from Schwartz:

                        Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

                        Okay great - we have a description of 'him'.
                        However, having had access to this for a few decades, or whatever it is, please tell me in what regard we are closer to identifying the Ripper?
                        If this supposedly crucial evidence has not moved us one iota closer to uncovering his identity, then why stick with the evidence-only approach?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • In #1002, meant to say: There is not enough evidence to do that. (Can't edit)

                          Me: On the subject of Schwartz' address, where in Berner St had he and his wife been living?
                          Presumably somewhere on the club side, between Fairclough and Ellen streets.
                          I wonder, when Israel tentatively walked back from the rail arch, did he notice a crowd of people outside the gates of #40?

                          Jeff: Again, unanswerable.
                          I'm not asking for an answer, as though we have CCTV to look at.
                          I am asking for this to be considered, in this regard...

                          Any marginally curious person would, in Israel Schwartz' position, be interested in a crowd of people at the gates of #40, when returning to the vicinity, just a few minutes after seeing a woman thrown to the ground, right at that spot.
                          However, Schwartz does not mention going back to that spot, or being curious about what might have eventuated, or wanting to have a closer look but being apprehensive about going too near.
                          Why not?
                          Yes, I know; unanswerable
                          However, any normal person would have said something about this to the reporter, even if that something is not mentioned in the newspaper.
                          The point being though; a witness's return to a murder scene, just after seeing an assault at that spot, at close range, and also seeing another potential witness who seems to behave oddly, would almost definitely not be left out - so what does the absence of this part of the story, suggest?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Hi NBFN, (I don't know why, but the quote function isn't working for me?)

                            Ah, see, I think you're correct in that the evidence is currently insufficient to identify JtR. But putting a name to the offender is not the only goal, although I admit it would be nice to be able to solve that part of the puzzle. There has been a lot of speculation, however, around the Whitechappel murders, so much so, that it is often hard for people to tell what is real and what is speculation on the story teller's part.

                            What I do know is that people are very creative, we fill in the blanks, often without realizing it, and then become convinced that how we imagined things to be are how they really were. What I focus upon is stripping out our speculations and getting back to what the testimony was, and trying to work out what actually happened (or, perhaps better phrased, what is it we know about what actually happened). And this is important for both those who are suspect focused (looking to solve who JtR) and for those who are not, simply because when we come to connecting the dots we need to know what the dots are. Way too often, to make a story work, real dots start getting erased or ignored. The events of the nights are the dots, the lines we use to connect them are our imaginations.

                            Presenting imagination as if it's a dot, or ignoring dots because they conflict with out imaginations, will never solve anything. And because a lot of people come and read the boards who are new to the case, it's important to keep what is known separate from what I'm imagining.

                            Also, the validity of a speculative notion can be compared to other speculations simply based upon comparing relative probabilities. Saying "Lawende was in Berners Street" around 12:45 is to claim an improbable event - improbable because he is known to be at the Imperial Club with friends at 1:30, 45 minutes later, and it would take about 15 minutes I think to get there, meaning Lawende is only at the club for 30 minutes before getting up to leave. That would be improbable, and is the sort of thing one would expect to have been noted by the police at the time. So we can examine that speculation and we find in our evidence no mention of Lawende at Berners Street, and no indication he arrived at the club around 1:00, and a reasonable grounds to expect the police would have checked with the club to verify that Lawende, Levy, and Harris were, in fact there at the times they said. Yes, I'm speculating they did that check because it's not recorded in the evidence, but my speculation is based upon normal police procedure - they don't just say "oh, well, that's a good tale, off you go then", rather they routinely record the person's account was confirmed, despite not recording how it was confirmed (which annoys me).

                            So, speculations are fine, provided they are presented as such - signal when you're filling in the blanks, i.e. the man seen holding the 18" x 6"-8" parcel might have been holding a bundle of papers, which in turn might have been flyers from the club which means he might have been a club member, and so he could possibly have been Lave...". Then, people can see where you're presenting known case material and where you diverge into presenting your speculations. This is really useful for readers because how one responds depends upon whether one is discussing the "facts" (actual evidence) or "theory" (our speculative interpretations).

                            Also, presenting "atmospheric hypothetical questions" need to be indicated as such, otherwise they come across as sophistry - which just means an attempt to convince by how one speaks rather than by what one speaks - creating a "mood" to sway people (i.e. it now "feels right") rather than presenting a sound reasoning. Sophistry is great for politicians (in fact, sophistry was developed by the ancient Greeks for that very purpose), but not so great for researchers. It's a creative writing technique, and a very effective one, but research, and our interpretations, should either stand without such artificial supports or fall. If our goal is to understand then we should be happy to change our minds when the evidence knocks over our creative filling in of the blanks. Nothing wrong with being wrong (I am all the time), but there is something wrong with choosing to stay wrong.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Jeff,
                              that's all interesting stuff, but you are misquoting me.

                              Jeff: Saying "Lawende was in Berners Street" around 12:45 is to claim an improbable event - improbable because he is known to be at the Imperial Club with friends at 1:30...
                              Andrew: Schwartz did not run away from Pipeman, until Joseph Lawende chased him down Duke street.
                              'Broad shouldered man' yelled 'Lipski' at Lawende - an orthodox, lower-middle class man, who was standing outside the Jewish men's club, in Duke street.
                              That is why no one heard it, in Berner street!
                              Quite possibly, Israel Schwartz is 5'5", with a fair complexion, dark hair, a small mustache, has a full face and broad shoulders, and sometimes wears a black cap with peak.
                              In other words, Schwartz' first man is self-projection.

                              Regarding speculations, here is a timeline that should result in quite a lot of it:

                              12:14 - Wess; leaves 'literature' in printing office
                              12:15 - Wess; reports no activity at gates or on ground near gates
                              12:30 - Charles Letchford; reports Berner street all-clear
                              12:30 - Lave; reports Dutfield's Yard all-clear
                              12:35 - Smith; sees victim with a man, who holds interestingly shaped newspaper parcel
                              12:3?-40 - Lave; reports Berner street and passageway all-clear
                              12:40 - Eagle; reports Berner street and passageway all-clear
                              12:45 - Schwartz; gives statement indicating he turns into Berner street, and walks by #40
                              12:45 - Arbeter Fraint; indicates this to be time of death of victim, referred to as "Tall Lisa"
                              12:50 - Letchford's sister; reports Berner street all-clear
                              01:00 - Diemschitz; claims to discover victim's body - Arbeter Fraint concurs
                              01:00 - Smith; reports seeing crowd outside #40, and arrives to find 2 PCs already there, plus large crowd

                              So...
                              Arbeter Fraint states time of death to be 12:45.
                              ​​​​​​​Arbeter Fraint states time of discovery to be 1 am.
                              ​​​​​​​Arbeter Fraint does not explain this glaring anomaly, nor do they mention anything about the Schwartz incident.

                              So I will ask an atmospheric hypothetical question, addressed to anyone who has the courage to answer it:

                              Could the club have been involved in the murder of Liz Stride, and if not, WTF is going here?
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment

                              • Working...
                                X